No, it doesn't. It was just published by CRU at the end of the past month. You can get the raw data files for it here
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
No, it doesn't. It was just published by CRU at the end of the past month. You can get the raw data files for it here
That's because I've seen the HadCRU data just published (I provided you with the graph they put on their site, and now I've given you the link for the data files), I regularly check the GISS data, I check the UAH data at the end of every month.
Also, I started to look at your links, but the first one I looked at was on satellite data and it linked me to NASA. Only NASA isn't responsible for the satellite data. NOAA/UAH is. And the two guys who are most responsible for it are both so-called "climate deniers."
NASA's RoleTaking a global perspective on Earth's climate
NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere, cyrosphere), with several more planned for launch in the next few years.
Climate Change: NASA's Role
Yeah I saw this. When you can find me the data set from these satellites, let me know. Oh, wait! You can find them. Because they are put together at the end of each month by UAH, using satellites from NASA. You can find the data sets to the end of 2011 here, not including December (notice the last line begins in 2010 but only covers 11 months, so it ends right before 2011). For the data including all of 2011, see here.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
That particular one does you posted, but thanks for the link and I will check it out.
This one is from NOAA and CO and Ice core samples going back 650 thousand years.
I'm not talking about the famous "hide the decline," or even limiting the issue to data hiding. For example, I found the following the remarks rather concerning things "I can't see either of these papers [by various "deniers"] being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
I work with fMRI data. I'm aware of what '"noisy data" looks like. The issue isn't just "raw data" but the code used to generate the published data, which Tom Wigley and Phil Jones talk about hiding from FOI requests. The issue isn't with not releasing "noisy data" it's with not releasing either the "raw data" or the code used to generate the "smoothed data." Without these, there is no way to verify the temperature sets published by HadCRU, GISS, etc.
[/quote]
ps... eugenics predates Darwin. Though Darwin was used to try to legitimize it.[/quote]
The notion goes. The so-called "scientific movement" doesn't. The term itself isn't from ancient greek, but was coined in the 19th century AFTER Darwin by someone who was relying on Darwin's theory (I can't remember the name offhand, but he was a big name at the time- I'll have to look this up).
No, it doesn't. Look again-
Notice where the year 2000 is. Notice where the graph ends. See how it is about half the distance from 1980 to 2000? That's because it ends right before 2012.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I posted a response and lost it.
However what does your graph say there in red?
as far as the nasa satellite data goes Nasa give's NOAA and the department of defence the data sets.
HadCRU gets its data from what satellites?
I had some information but lost it about all this. I will try to find it again.
Datasets and derived material are available from the NASA GISS websites for the following research projects:
Climate Change Simulations
GISS ModelE
Earth Observations
Temperature
Storms
Radiation
Climate Forcings
The human fingerprint in global warming
Posted on 29 March 2010 by John Cook
In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:
The human fingerprint in atmospheric carbon dioxide
That rising carbon dioxide is caused by human CO2 emissions should be obvious when comparing CO2 levels to CO2 emissions:
The human fingerprint in global warming
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
October 2011
A group of scientists known for their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records. Their study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter.
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed - environment - 20 October 2011 - New Scientist
Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010
Published by Nick Sundt on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 18:52
NASA yesterday (19 January 2012) released data showing that last year temperatures in the Arctic rose beyond the record established in 2010 -- setting a new record for 2011. News of the record Arctic temperatures follows a series of alarming developments related to the Arctic in recent months.
Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010 | WWF Climate Blog
However what does your graph say there in red?
as far as the nasa satellite data goes Nasa give's NOAA and the department of defence the data sets.
HadCRU gets its data from what satellites?
I had some information but lost it about all this. I will try to find it again.
Datasets and derived material are available from the NASA GISS websites for the following research projects:
Climate Change Simulations
GISS ModelE
- Earth's Energy Imbalance
- Efficacy of Climate Forcings
- Climate Simulations for 1880-2003
- Dangerous Human-Made Interference
- Transient Simulations with Beryllium-10
Earth Observations
Temperature
- GISS Surface Air Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
- Common Sense Climate Index (CSCI)
- International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)
- GEWEX Cloud System Study Data Integration for Model Evaluation (GCSS-DIME)
- Global Aerosol Climatology Project (GACP)
- Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II) V6.20
- Photopolarimetry Measurements of Aerosols (RSP-Air)
- Observed Land Surface Precipitation Data: 1850-1995 (GISS/Dai)
- Observed Land Surface Precipitation Data: 1901-2000 (CRU TS 2.0)
- ISCCP Global surface and atmospheric radiative fluxes
- Surface solar irradiance: Datasets produced for SeaWiFS
Storms
Radiation
Climate Forcings
- Forcings in GISS climate model
- Mineral dust aerosols
- Global land-use datasets
- Surface exchange of carbon dioxide
- Surface exchange of methane
The human fingerprint in global warming
Posted on 29 March 2010 by John Cook
In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:
The human fingerprint in atmospheric carbon dioxide
That rising carbon dioxide is caused by human CO2 emissions should be obvious when comparing CO2 levels to CO2 emissions:
The human fingerprint in global warming
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
October 2011
A group of scientists known for their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records. Their study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter.
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed - environment - 20 October 2011 - New Scientist
Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010
Published by Nick Sundt on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 18:52
NASA yesterday (19 January 2012) released data showing that last year temperatures in the Arctic rose beyond the record established in 2010 -- setting a new record for 2011. News of the record Arctic temperatures follows a series of alarming developments related to the Arctic in recent months.
Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010 | WWF Climate Blog
That's the AGW period according to mainstream/"consensus" climate science. The creators of the HadCRU data set are definitely pro-AGW. That graph was produced by East Anglia's CRU, the group that whose emails were stolen/illegally released in 2009 (and again recently).
The bottom link there is from CRU. They're behind the graph I posted.
Again, the NOAA data sets are put together by UAH: Upper Atmospheric Temperatures
The methods for using the satellites to record temperatures, as well as the data itself, were developed mostly by Spencer & Christy. Who (once again) are both active climate specialists who don't believe there is any good evidence to believe the current warming trend is anthropogenic. So any citations of NASA and their satellites in terms of climate data inevitably involve their work.
If memory serves, they incorporate UAH/RSS data sets. Again, the last time (of my two attempts) I spent several months going into the temperature records and the data, mathemataics, and published literature about them, I gave up. It's just too convoluted and there's too much that isn't available. All of these data sets are adjusted. But the raw data and the code used to adjust them isn't (for the most part) available. Which makes it impossible to determine how the sets were actually created.
You have to understand that each data set type has particular issues. The data sets from Satellites are the best, because MSU's don't actually record the temperature, but rather temperature dependent variables. So they are capable of non-local readings which aren't biased by surface processes. However, they are sensitive to other issues (measurement errors due to equipment malfunctions). Some of these issue have been pointed out in several important articles in the past two decades or so. Each time, Spencer & Christy have adjusted the data based on the findings. Each time, however, the adjustments have always been upward. The natural question to ask is, if there are problems which push the errors in one direction, might there not also be problems which push it in the other? But nobody is looking for those. Perhaps there are none. But whether there are or there aren't, the satellite data has been adjusted only in one direction: up. Also, the satellite record is the shortest. It begins after the AGW trend. Surface readings are the most problematic direct measurements. Thermometers are sensitive to any number of nearby heat sources. Also, a great many things that humans do, from urban development to farming, can drastically affect the local temperature. The classic example of this is the UHI affect, but according to recent research other surface changes also affect local temperatures but not the climate. Then there is the spatial issue. Most measurements are from land, and until relatively recently, very few countries had widespread, accurate, regular recordings. This isn't a simple averaging problem where one takes the total number of readings and divides by the total number of measurement devices. The local temperature is affected by a small change in altitude, including distance from ground, not sea level. And the relatively few ocean recordings have to made up for by the far, far more land recordings, although most of the earth is covered by oceans.
Last edited:
You wonder why I don't read all your links. It's because you link to junk like this. WHAT climate scientists? The BEST team includes a handful of researchers, and none of them are among the "skeptical scientist" or so-called "deniers." According to the Guardian: "My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said." That sounds like a project FOR "skeptics" not BY skeptics. If you want me to pay attention to what you link to, then link to worthwhile information. The first time I decided to pay attention to the stuff you were linking too, it was temperature data about NASA satellites. Except you didn't, apparently, have any idea about this data set. Because NASA doesn't produce it. Nor did you link to the data sets produced by satellites. Then I figured I'd check this link out, and again I find NOTHING.
When you've read ACTUAL studies published by climate "skeptics," then come back and tell me what they "concede." In fact, until you have read enough to know where your the data sets come from, and the scholarship about them, why not stop linking to them altogether? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear like you know how these data sets are collected, combined, and "smoothed" to the versions you see.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Collect all the methane coming out of politicians mouths and eject it into space.
Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. My research/field concerns dynamical systems. Climate is a dynamical sytem. I've spent countless hours reading the research published. I can understand computer code and there's nothing in the mathematics I can't understand. I don't like how hard it is to check the validty of the most basic aspect/argument for AGW: the temperature data.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Well that quote is rather bad sounding isn't it!
I wonder what the context of the conversation was and the ultimate result.
fair enough... raw data should always be available. Code, I'm not as certain on... I don't know how computer code is treated at the academic level. My field doesn't use a lot of proprietary code, so it's generally under my radar.
That would have been Sir Frances Galton. However the idea of "killing the weak to breed better people" and "only letting the best breed" has been around since Plato. He wrote extensively on how human breeding should be tightly controlled, to produce the best results.
In many cultures infanticide was fairly common to rid the populace of "weak" offspring. The most notorious example being Sparta but it's also codified in the Roman laws.
Ever since humans started to selectively breed animals, they started to ponder the possibilities in humans.
Malthusianism could also be considered a forerunner of eugenics, though this was done in the name of economics rather than genetics.
The use of Phrenology to classify people into undesirable classes that need to be restricted also predates Darwin.
I could go on, but this gives the general idea. Eugenics only gave a new tool to an already very old idea... it replaced all the previous excuses with genetics.
wa:do
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"what they "concede."
The earth is warming up.
I am not looking to get a Phd in climatology or read through all the data sets and how there put together and actually know more about this then you think I do and somethings you don't know about them or are not mentioning.
Nor do I need to argue about just the data sets and who collect and interprets them.
I have studied this long enough to know the earth is warming up and the oceans are acidifying and man has contributed to the problem. That simple.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Al Gore just put the Video together from other scientist work. I would say he is a champion of getting the message out.
"Climate is a dynamical sytem. I've spent countless hours reading the research published. I can understand computer code and there's nothing in the mathematics I can't understand. I don't like how hard it is to check the validty of the most basic aspect/argument for AGW: the temperature data"
Then what is the problem? You should have this all figured out for them?
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said." That sounds like a project FOR "skeptics" not BY skeptics."
You do know who funded Richard Muller study?
"
Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real
The prominent physicist said we should reduce greenhouse gases
One of the most prominent global warming skeptics is changing is his tune.
Richard Muller, a physicist who spent two years trying to see if mainstream climate scientists were wrong about the earth's climate changes, determined that they were right, the Associated Press reported.
His findings showed the temperature had risen about 1.6 degrees since the 1950s.
"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller told the AP. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
Scientists said that Muller can expect some serious backlash from the scientific community - especially climate change deniers.
"Now he's considered a traitor," said author Shawn Lawrence Otto, who wrote a book criticizing climate change deniers.
"For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."
Muller said he was never a denier - he just wanted the studies to be done properly.
Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real - NY Daily News
I am sure you know who the Koch brothers are and what they do. Interesting they would fund a global warming study in the first place.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Following are news releases, features and updates about GISS research for the past year. Archives are also available for 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003.
Separate listings are available for news releases, research features, science briefs and video.
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. This continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern record have occurred since 2000
Jan. 19, 2012
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92°F (0.51°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.
NASA GISS: Research News: NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo 18 January 2012
The annual 2011 surface air temperature anomaly relative to base period 1951-1980 is shown in Fig. 1 at both the 1200 km and 250 km resolutions of the GISS analysis (Hansen et al., 2010). The global mean anomaly, averaged over the area with a defined anomaly is 0.51°C for 1200 km resolution and 0.44°C for 250 km resolution. The 1200 km resolution analysis, because it fills in estimated anomalies in Africa, Canada, Siberia, and especially in the Arctic, is believed to provide the better estimate for the full global anomaly, as discussed by Hansen et al. (2010) (note 1).
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis
Separate listings are available for news releases, research features, science briefs and video.
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. This continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern record have occurred since 2000
Jan. 19, 2012
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92°F (0.51°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.
NASA GISS: Research News: NASA Finds 2011 Ninth Warmest Year on Record
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo 18 January 2012
The annual 2011 surface air temperature anomaly relative to base period 1951-1980 is shown in Fig. 1 at both the 1200 km and 250 km resolutions of the GISS analysis (Hansen et al., 2010). The global mean anomaly, averaged over the area with a defined anomaly is 0.51°C for 1200 km resolution and 0.44°C for 250 km resolution. The 1200 km resolution analysis, because it fills in estimated anomalies in Africa, Canada, Siberia, and especially in the Arctic, is believed to provide the better estimate for the full global anomaly, as discussed by Hansen et al. (2010) (note 1).
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis
work in progress
Well-Known Member
The heading above the chart contains the link to the Thinkprogress article written in response to the claims of that WSJ article.
Well that quote is rather bad sounding isn't it!
I wonder what the context of the conversation was and the ultimate result.
Hard to say. They weren't included in the IPCC report. But that doesn't mean they were kept out by "redefining" peer-review.[/quote]
That's certainly true.
WHAT WSJ article? I didn't refer to any. That chart is taken from the CRU website. Not any "WSJ" article.
NOBODY that I know of (among scientists) thinks differently. The issue is WHY. The so-called "deniers" think that most or all of the observed warming is due to natural mechanisms.